UK Politics Thread

[Pannonian]

So many firsts!

First PM to be convicted of a crime.
The most fines to be given out at one address - is it just the Members from numbers 10 and 11? Not to worry, several MPs have already backed the PM.
Boris always wanted to get into the history books and finally he's managed it - no one can be an earlier first.



In theory we do have such a system. But it so decrepit with no use (75 years and counting) that even though this is possibly the clearest time do do Something in decades, nothing will happen. Of course not exercising the power to remove the PM for any number of reasons - I realise that is fantasy. But even an anaemic statement that the Monarch is "disappointed" in what has happened and hopes that those involved will do the right thing for the country would be better than just arranging the next outing with Prince Andrew.

I do feel sorry for Sir Kier. He goes to PMQs each week and he must wonder what the point is. Nothing matters. What on earth can he say or do that will have any impact? And by the election it will all be a distant memory in any case.

"Jeremy Corbyn."
"Get Brexit done."

The two biggest reasons given for not voting Labour. And the Tories will still push these arguments and the media will back them.

[Pannonian]

Entirely separate from the moral/professional/political pressure for him to resign - which he deserves however the chips fall - a FPN is not considered a conviction.
It is deemed a conviction up until it is paid, not once that event is achieved.

https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/ab...y-notices.html

And where does lying to Parliament stand in the list of definitions? What is the point of Prime Minister's Questions if they can give any false answer they want and nothing will be done about it?

And the Mail is now pushing the implied argument that it's unpatriotic to want the PM to stand down at a time of war, even though we're not at war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't know how you would word it, but Sunak changed policy to benefit non-domiciles that would have affected his household income, and his wife's company was involved in numerous discussions with the government that resulted in government contracts worth millions. Is it libellous to say this?

If the accusation is true it cannot be libelous. However, to be strict, SAYING something that is defamatory and untrue is slanderous, it is only libelous if it is printed.

[Pannonian]

Amusing [VIDEO]



There's oversight, it's just difficult to get it applied to prominent individuals (ask Trump) in any system that doesn't formally prioritize such.

Summary: The South Dakota attorney general ran over a pedestrian lethally in the middle of the night, hit and ran (the victim's glasses were blown into his car), tried to brush it off as a misunderstanding or the result of the victim's intoxication or suicidality.

The AG was not indicted as a normal person would have been, but there was an expectation that he would resign. He did not resign and now is running for reelection, creating the scintilla of a possibility that his own party (one guess which) will impeach him in the near future.

What more "oversight" is needed in a clear-cut case of negligent homicide that state police thoroughly documented? Governmental actors need to have a willingness to 'pull the trigger' is all. It seems to me primarily a matter of creating incentive structures for the scalps of politicians and magnates...

Last year Mexico held a symbolic referendum on whether former presidents can be prosecuted for corruption. It won with 98% of the vote with 7% turnout. That seems perfectly representative of the underlying issue.

Democracy trumps rule of law. Democratically elected governments don't need to follow the law, because they have the backing of the people. Since the only oversight is Parliament, where they have a hefty majority and the iron rule of whips, it is the will of the people that the laws they set for others does not apply to the ones who set the laws.

[Pannonian]

The Tory government presents plans to "process" refugees in Rwanda, a country which the PM said, less than 12 months ago, does not respect human rights. The Mail proclaims, a majority of UK citizens support the proposal.

[Pannonian]

Remember all those government initiatives and plans, announced as proof that the government had everything in hand and critics claiming that government incompetence were out of order. The government announced a supply chain taskforce in September 2021, tasked with making sure that Christmas would not be cancelled. By the time the list of government agencies was next updated in October 2021, that taskforce no longer existed, and it may never have convened at all. So here's an example of a government initiative that never existed in practice, but only to occupy the headlines for the purpose of shoring up voter support.

For those who still support Brexit: what were the benefits again? Is there any concrete evidence of the benefits that were promised, or did they only exist in the same manner as this logistics taskforce; solely for the purpose of headlines and votes?

[Furunculus]

the desire for legitimate governance - deemed so principally on the basis that it is [both] representative [and] accountable.
free to succeed and fail based on ones own policy preferences.
i am perfectly okay with brexit so far, and fail to recognise (or understand) the disaster mavens:

is it the titanic unemployment we face vs our european peers? 3.8% vs 7.1%.
is it horrific the GDP growth vs the continental tigers?
is it suicidal business sentiment?
is it awful and shaming way we have a more positive view of migrants than the bloc of sunshine and kumbaya next door?
is the way that tech investment in the UK occurs at a rate of more than the next two biggest continental economies combined?
is it that irrelevant britain keeps building security partnerships with foolish nations like finland and poland (who should look to the EU instead)?
it is the way the british financial system teeters on the brink of collapse with quantitive easing and negative rate while inflation roars ahead at 7.5%? oops, that is the EU.

this brexit calamity meme is truly a wonder, can you explain it to me please?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

the desire for legitimate governance - deemed so principally on the basis that it is [both] representative [and] accountable.
free to succeed and fail based on ones own policy preferences.
i am perfectly okay with brexit so far, and fail to recognise (or understand) the disaster mavens:

is it the titanic unemployment we face vs our european peers? 3.8% vs 7.1%.
is it horrific the GDP growth vs the continental tigers?
is it suicidal business sentiment?
is it awful and shaming way we have a more positive view of migrants than the bloc of sunshine and kumbaya next door?
is the way that tech investment in the UK occurs at a rate of more than the next two biggest continental economies combined?
is it that irrelevant britain keeps building security partnerships with foolish nations like finland and poland (who should look to the EU instead)?
it is the way the british financial system teeters on the brink of collapse with quantitive easing and negative rate while inflation roars ahead at 7.5%? oops, that is the EU.

this brexit calamity meme is truly a wonder, can you explain it to me please?

I have been gathering the impression (it's rather under-reported-upon here) that the Brexit is nowhere near as smooth as its proponents had been selling it to be, but also nowhere near the economic meltdown and bread-lines fiasco that its detractors asserted would result.

[Furunculus]

I have been gathering the impression (it's rather under-reported-upon here) that the Brexit is nowhere near as smooth as its proponents had been selling it to be, but also nowhere near the economic meltdown and bread-lines fiasco that its detractors asserted would result.

that is correct:
brexiteers oversold the goodwill that might exist from the EU in recreating a deep trade partnership at the same time as we said we wanted a divorce from the economic, social, and fiscal measures.
remainers oversold how much we actually benefit from the single market, and as a generalisation dislike the demonstrable-harm regulatory principle that allow fin-serv, biotech, data, ai industries to thrive.

[rory_20_uk]

Remember all those government initiatives and plans, announced as proof that the government had everything in hand and critics claiming that government incompetence were out of order. The government announced a supply chain taskforce in September 2021, tasked with making sure that Christmas would not be cancelled. By the time the list of government agencies was next updated in October 2021, that taskforce no longer existed, and it may never have convened at all. So here's an example of a government initiative that never existed in practice, but only to occupy the headlines for the purpose of shoring up voter support.

For those who still support Brexit: what were the benefits again? Is there any concrete evidence of the benefits that were promised, or did they only exist in the same manner as this logistics taskforce; solely for the purpose of headlines and votes?

The last vote on the EU was when it was the EEC. That was what? 50 years ago now. And in fact, since then the populace have never been directly asked - and for good reason since no country has ever said yes to such a question on the first attempt - either the requirement to ask has been removed or the laws have been altered to get the right answer. And if this vote had been a "yes", there's no time frame that there might ever have been another. So the exercise isn't about the 5 year tactical about who is PM but rather the decades spanning strategy of who has final say over the UK.

[Pannonian]

The last vote on the EU was when it was the EEC. That was what? 50 years ago now. And in fact, since then the populace have never been directly asked - and for good reason since no country has ever said yes to such a question on the first attempt - either the requirement to ask has been removed or the laws have been altered to get the right answer. And if this vote had been a "yes", there's no time frame that there might ever have been another. So the exercise isn't about the 5 year tactical about who is PM but rather the decades spanning strategy of who has final say over the UK.

And what will the 2016 vote be used to justify? It's been used to justify deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, which I do not remember being on the agenda in 2016.

Meanwhile, the PM accepted last month that he was wrong to have used certain employment statistics, and accepted correction by the watchdog. This means he now knows that these stats were wrong. And he's repeated them again. Does this count as knowingly misleading the House? What should be done about it? NB. In making these statements and not correcting them, he has been contravening the ministerial code.

[Furunculus]

And what will the 2016 vote be used to justify? It's been used to justify deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, which I do not remember being on the agenda in 2016.

Meanwhile, the PM accepted last month that he was wrong to have used certain employment statistics, and accepted correction by the watchdog. This means he now knows that these stats were wrong. And he's repeated them again. Does this count as knowingly misleading the House? What should be done about it? NB. In making these statements and not correcting them, he has been contravening the ministerial code.

Asylum processing in third countries may be a good or a bad thing, but it is not related to brexit or the absence of the loving embrace of compassionate EU social democracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...outside-europe

Would the real employment statistics show the true scale of the UK's post-brexit employment catastrophe vis-a-vis our peer nation in the EU?
Like France for example...

[Pannonian]

Asylum processing in third countries may be a good or a bad thing, but it is not related to brexit or the absence of the loving embrace of compassionate EU social democracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...outside-europe

Would the real employment statistics show the true scale of the UK's post-brexit employment catastrophe vis-a-vis our peer nation in the EU?
Like France for example...

Whether or not it's related, Tory MPs have been citing Brexit to justify it.

Dunno why you're dragging the EU into the employment stats. The PM used specific stats that were deceiving, and the watchdog notified him that they were deceiving, and he accepted their correction, meaning that he undeniably knew (by this point) that they were deceiving and should not be used. Yet he's gone and repeated them. Is knowingly misleading the House another issue that's justified by pointing at the EU? Is there no end to the amount of misconduct that cannot be justified by pointing at the EU, or will it forever be a politically effective scapegoat, even after we've left?

[Furunculus]

In fairness, the context provided forced me to guess at what employment stats you were talking about.

And on my presumption as to why the EU might be involved; that would be because brexit is your obsession:
"And what will the 2016 vote be used to justify? It's been used to justify deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, which I do not remember being on the agenda in 2016."

[Furunculus]

entertained by this while we all get hot and sweaty about our leaders having 'illegal' lockdown parties:

https://twitter.com/cold957/status/1517758883347017728

if there is one lesson we should take from this (beyond not lying to parliament), it is that we must never have such a lockdown again where no one can realistically be expected to live up to it - because its provisions are beyond what is reasonable.

[Pannonian]

entertained by this while we all get hot and sweaty about our leaders having 'illegal' lockdown parties:

https://twitter.com/cold957/status/1517758883347017728

if there is one lesson we should take from this (beyond not lying to parliament), it is that we must never have such a lockdown again where no one can realistically be expected to live up to it - because its provisions are beyond what is reasonable.

I lived up to it. Why couldn't those who made the rules live up to it? After all, they told us what the rules were, so they should have been the most familiar with them.

Do you think those who make the laws should obey them? Or do you think that it's unreasonable, and prefer to point to everyone else instead?

BTW, I think you'll have a point if you support Boris Johnson becoming opposition leader so he'll be in an equivalent position to Keir Starmer. Will you be voting to make this so, so that Labour can have a go at making laws whilst not obeying them?

[Furunculus]

I do. I question whether those rules even apply to public buildings during a pandemic as a general point, and on a specific point i question whether a ten minute pause before a following meeting for people who work together anyway in order to present a cake should fall under the label of "illegal granny killing lockdown party".

I simply don't care about the event for which he has received a FPN.
I do care if he has misled parliament according to the definition adopted in parliaments procedures; which is a technical point made all the more uncertain given the general and specific points above.
If he has misled parliament then i have no sympathy for whatever political consequences befall him, yet i personally have no use for a labour party in gov't - they work against that which I wish to see done.

[Pannonian]

I do. I question whether those rules even apply to public buildings during a pandemic as a general point, and on a specific point i question whether a ten minute pause before a following meeting for people who work together anyway in order to present a cake should fall under the label of "illegal granny killing lockdown party".

I simply don't care about the event for which he has received a FPN.
I do care if he has misled parliament according to the definition adopted in parliaments procedures; which is a technical point made all the more uncertain given the general and specific points above.
If he has misled parliament then i have no sympathy for whatever political consequences befall him, yet i personally have no use for a labour party in gov't - they work against that which I wish to see done.

Going to technicalities now?

The last sentence sums it up. The Tories can do whatever they like, and you will continue to vote them in to keep Labour out. So much for supposed standards to hold the government up to. You will always find the decisive excuse to vote Tory: keep Labour out.

[Furunculus]

If the technicality involves public buildings being exempt from pandemic related restrictions, yes.
If the technicality involves gatherings of people in public buildings - subject to a risk assessment, yes.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-break-the-law

On the last sentence - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Is the PM a criminal - no, a FPN does not imply a criminal conviction.
Has the PM broken the law - almost certainly not.
Has the PM broken parliamentary regs in intentionally misleading parliament - seems rather unlikely:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ead-parliament

[rory_20_uk]

If the technicality involves public buildings being exempt from pandemic related restrictions, yes.
If the technicality involves gatherings of people in public buildings - subject to a risk assessment, yes.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-break-the-law

On the last sentence - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Is the PM a criminal - no, a FPN does not imply a criminal conviction.
Has the PM broken the law - almost certainly not.
Has the PM broken parliamentary regs in intentionally misleading parliament - seems rather unlikely:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ead-parliament

Let us go by first principles.

The FPN in question is in relation to a criminal law. To get one they had to have been proven to a criminal standard to have been guilty.
With any FPN one has two options - accept guilt and pay or challenge at the Magistrate's Court. Boris, Mrs Boris and Sunak all have payed so they are all admitting guilt - so they by their own admission broke the law.
Could they have challenged it? Of course. Perhaps even getting the Government to pay for a Barrister such as the one who penned the article to persuade the Magistrates that the gathering with alcohol was required for government to work; or that in fact the law didn't apply where the parties took place. And perhaps the Magistrates would have agreed. Or if not it could have been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

There was an episode of Yes Prime Minister where the PM stood up in the house to state that a certain MP in the Opposition was not being surveilled by MI5. Hacker was very pleased with himself. Of course the MP was being surveilled and Sir Humphrey explained that he PM was not informed just so he could tell such things to the house without intentionally misleading parliament. As is stated in this case, no one knows what the PM was thinking and as long as he can claim he's such an ignorant idiot that he thought that it was OK then apparently it is.

As always it is not the crime but the coverup that get politicians in trouble, so unsurprisingly he's handled this side well (experience helps I imagine).

Whilst I accept that from a purely legal standard it is not possible to prove that he intentionally misled government, his proved ease at lying is well documented and on the balance of probabilities I think he's no so stupid not to have known, he just continues to believe - just like his father - that laws shouldn't apply to persons such as him.

[Furunculus]

Let us go by first principles.

The FPN in question is in relation to a criminal law. To get one they had to have been proven to a criminal standard to have been guilty.
With any FPN one has two options - accept guilt and pay or challenge at the Magistrate's Court. Boris, Mrs Boris and Sunak all have payed so they are all admitting guilt - so they by their own admission broke the law.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053828112

As is the case with the FPNs discussed above, the incentive is for the offender to “pay up”, therefore, no criminal conviction or admission of guilt is associated with payment of the penalty.

Whilst I accept that from a purely legal standard it is not possible to prove that he intentionally misled government, his proved ease at lying is well documented and on the balance of probabilities I think he's no so stupid not to have known, he just continues to believe - just like his father - that laws shouldn't apply to persons such as him.

I agree. And my stated position on this is well documented:

If he has misled parliament then i have no sympathy for whatever political consequences befall him...

Entirely separate from the moral/professional/political pressure for him to resign - which he deserves however the chips fall...

[Pannonian]

Let us go by first principles.

The FPN in question is in relation to a criminal law. To get one they had to have been proven to a criminal standard to have been guilty.
With any FPN one has two options - accept guilt and pay or challenge at the Magistrate's Court. Boris, Mrs Boris and Sunak all have payed so they are all admitting guilt - so they by their own admission broke the law.
Could they have challenged it? Of course. Perhaps even getting the Government to pay for a Barrister such as the one who penned the article to persuade the Magistrates that the gathering with alcohol was required for government to work; or that in fact the law didn't apply where the parties took place. And perhaps the Magistrates would have agreed. Or if not it could have been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

There was an episode of Yes Prime Minister where the PM stood up in the house to state that a certain MP in the Opposition was not being surveilled by MI5. Hacker was very pleased with himself. Of course the MP was being surveilled and Sir Humphrey explained that he PM was not informed just so he could tell such things to the house without intentionally misleading parliament. As is stated in this case, no one knows what the PM was thinking and as long as he can claim he's such an ignorant idiot that he thought that it was OK then apparently it is.

As always it is not the crime but the coverup that get politicians in trouble, so unsurprisingly he's handled this side well (experience helps I imagine).

Whilst I accept that from a purely legal standard it is not possible to prove that he intentionally misled government, his proved ease at lying is well documented and on the balance of probabilities I think he's no so stupid not to have known, he just continues to believe - just like his father - that laws shouldn't apply to persons such as him.

It's not just a case of not knowing and thus unknowingly misleading Parliament. His use of employment stats has been explicitly stated to be misleading by the watchdog on this matter, which berated him and corrected him, and he accepted their correction, thus making it official that it was indisputable that he was no longer unknowing. Yet he repeated those stats anyway, as most of the mainstream media will back him against Labour no matter what, and what matters to the public is the headlines these media put out, not the legalities and details.

And, of course, there is the weasel argument Furunculus puts forward, that he supports whatever political consequences that come to Johnson. The ultimate political consequence is being voted out, and Furunculus also says that these misdemeanors aren't sufficient to make him vote them out. With the media supporting Johnson against Labour, and people like Furunculus always stopping short of voting the Tories out, political consequences amount to nothing. Ignoring Johnson's lies and voting Tory anyway is still a political consequence.

[Furunculus]

With the media supporting Johnson against Labour, and people like Furunculus always stopping short of voting the Tories out, political consequences amount to nothing.

I repeat - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Likwise, i am not the british electorate. They are adults of legally sound mind and will make their own decision (as is expected of adults). Which will no doubt result in the Tories losing power before long. Fine, this is called representative democracy. Be of stout heart, young man, your time will yet come.

[Montmorency]

I repeat - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Likwise, i am not the british electorate. They are adults of legally sound mind and will make their own decision (as is expected of adults). Which will no doubt result in the Tories losing power before long. Fine, this is called representative democracy. Be of stout heart, young man, your time will yet come.

Is this the "Greater Evil" theory of politics? Ironically the same was said by left-dissident opponents of Hillary Clinton in 2016, though they used the term "blackmail" rather than "moral compulsion." Also somehow the language of pro-Trump right-wing respectability-seekers of the same election.

[Furunculus]

Is this the "Greater Evil" theory of politics? Ironically the same was said by left-dissident opponents of Hillary Clinton in 2016, though they used the term "blackmail" rather than "moral compulsion." Also somehow the language of pro-Trump right-wing respectability-seekers of the same election.

I have no idea, never heard of it.

Far more simple: I am right wing.

.'. parties that seem to operate from my core philosophy and enact governance in ways I like will get my vote, whereas those who work from a philosophy I reject and use it to offer governance i dislike will not get that vote.

If there was some egregious moral failing (above and beyond the normal in politics), such that it would override philosophy and action then any person should reflect on that. I do not believe we have reached such a point.

Voting labour is inimical to my interests, cake does not override this.

[Pannonian]

The chancellor unveils plans to claw back ?8bn from Covid fraud. I wonder if that will include investigating Tory peer Lady Mone, who got Downing Street to mark her husband's company down for VIP status even before it was formally registered as a company, which then made 200% profit on PPE which was not used (bought substandard PPE from China for ?50m, was paid ?150m by government for it). A Channel 4 (?) investigation found packs of said PPE, bought by NHS for ?1000, on ebay for ?10 (it was ?50 when I looked).

This government specialises in channeling tax money to its friends and family. But I suppose this corruption and incompetence is democratically endorsed, so all these arguments hold no water. Because democracy excuses everything. You don't need to be competent when you have democracy behind you. You don't need to follow the law when you have democracy behind you.

Edit: autocorrect changes pound signs to question marks.

[Pannonian]

Was there any reason for revealing military secrets on Ukraine during a visit to India?

Boris Johnson ‘tempting evil’ by revealing Ukrainian soldiers trained in Poland

A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

[Furunculus]

Any observations on Sunak's green card? Should our no.2 politician be holding high office while simultaneously holding a status that disqualifies him for it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2066837.html

In a report published today, Lord Geidt ruled that the non-dom status did not breach the ministerial code of conduct. He revealed that Mr Sunak disclosed his wife?s tax arrangements and her holding in her father?s Infosys company ? as well as the green card and the blind trust which oversees the chancellor?s private financial affairs - when he first became a minister....

The ethics adviser said that holding a green card ? which requires an individual to pay tax in America and commit to eventually settling in the US ? was not ?an inherent conflict of interest? and ?could not reasonably be said to be in tension with the faithful discharge of his duties? as chancellor.

There were no policy changes since his arrival at the Treasury which were relevant to Mr Sunak?s green card status, he found.

And while there were two measures, relating to inward investment and non-dom status, which would impact on his wife?s position, Lord Geidt found that Mr Sunak took steps on each ocassion to avoid conflicts of interest by ensuring another Treasury minister took the lead on decisions of substance.

Meanwhile, it was not deemed necessary to publish details of Ms Murty?s Infosys holding in the register as the company had no contracts with the Treasury during her husband?s time at the department.

Lord Geidt concluded: ?I advise that the requirements of the ministerial code have been adhered to by the chancellor, and that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation...

...Labour denounced the findings as a ?whitewash?, with deputy leader Angela Rayner saying: ?Downing Street has lost all ethical credibility.?

sometimes the p00p that was flung at the wall falls off, but that is exactly why we must always keep flinging more. :D

[Pannonian]

The chancellor unveils plans to claw back ?8bn from Covid fraud. I wonder if that will include investigating Tory peer Lady Mone, who got Downing Street to mark her husband's company down for VIP status even before it was formally registered as a company, which then made 200% profit on PPE which was not used (bought substandard PPE from China for ?50m, was paid ?150m by government for it). A Channel 4 (?) investigation found packs of said PPE, bought by NHS for ?1000, on ebay for ?10 (it was ?50 when I looked).

This government specialises in channeling tax money to its friends and family. But I suppose this corruption and incompetence is democratically endorsed, so all these arguments hold no water. Because democracy excuses everything. You don't need to be competent when you have democracy behind you. You don't need to follow the law when you have democracy behind you.

Edit: autocorrect changes pound signs to question marks.

An update on this. Lady Mone is indeed being investigated by the police. There were other companies with connections to Tory MPs who also got billions (up to 9 figure sums for individual companies) in non-tendered Covid contracts. The New York Times reported 33 billion in dodgy contracts.

[Montmorency]

I have no idea, never heard of it.

More elaborately, the idea of "why settle for the lesser evil?"

.'. parties that seem to operate from my core philosophy and enact governance in ways I like will get my vote, whereas those who work from a philosophy I reject and use it to offer governance i dislike will not get that vote.

If there was some egregious moral failing (above and beyond the normal in politics), such that it would override philosophy and action then any person should reflect on that. I do not believe we have reached such a point.

Voting labour is inimical to my interests, cake does not override this.

Of course those results are the rub. Against left-wing dissidents (cf. also French elections) the counter-argument was that effective abstention or defection is contrary to their stated principles in result. With the right that may or may not have been the case, the "not" being the more troubling scenario as we saw that it implies illiberalism. But no citizen is released from the duty to appraise results and interests according to the conduct of government in fact, not according to a high level of philosophical abstraction. "I am X, so I support X party" is not inherently satisfactory.

Thought you were a classical liberal* though.